ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Should we remove flexible intramedullary nails after diaphyseal forearm pediatric fracture? A cohort study of 288 patients.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRoutine removal of elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN) after pediatric diaphyseal forearm fractures remains common practice despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to evaluate refracture risk following ESIN retention compared with implant removal and assessed complications and healthcare resource use.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients treated with ESIN for diaphyseal forearm fractures at a single center were included. Following a policy change, routine implant removal was discontinued in favor of retaining implants unless symptomatic. Patients were grouped into removal and non-removal. The primary outcome was refracture, analyzed using Cox regression, and early refractures (< 12 months), using logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included complications and healthcare resource utilization (outpatient visits, radiographic examinations during follow-up).
results288 patients were included, of whom 136 underwent implant removal and 152 retained their implants. Among patients with implant retention, 9/152 (5.9%) subsequently required removal, most commonly due to implant-related irritation. Refracture occurred in 13/136 (9.6%) after implant removal and 8/152 (5.3%) after implant retention (absolute risk difference 4.3 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.8 to 10.4; HR 1.4, CI 0.5-3.4). Early refracture occurred in 8/136 (5.9%) patients after implant removal and 5/152 (3.3%) after implant retention (absolute risk difference 2.6 percentage points, CI -2.3 to 7.5; OR 1.8, CI 0.6-6.2), including 3 cases within 6 months after removal. Complications occurred in 11/136 (8.1%) patients after implant removal. Infection occurred in 5/136 (3.7%) after implant removal vs 4/288 (1.4%) after the initial surgery (risk difference 2.3 percentage points, CI -1.2 to 5.7).
conclusionESIN retention was well tolerated and associated with reduced healthcare utilization. No clear difference in refracture risk was observed between groups, although the study was not powered to detect moderate differences in risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.